C-dub wrote:What I don't understand is why won't requiring a business to ask an open carrier to leave if they don't want them in their store won't pass. It seems to be working okay in other states. What is so different about this here in Texas? Based on what Charles and others have said won't pass here it seems that getting OC passed is impossible here in Texas.

It's wrong to require a property owner to let someone enter the property so they will be forced to confront them and tell them to leave.

Chas.

Do you know if this was a big sticking point in any of the other states where this is the law? I haven't gotten that from anything else on this forum or the Kansas Forum I'm on. I know Kansas does have a sign, not a big ugly sign, to prohibit both OC and CC, but there are a bunch of people there that also get around to other states. I just thought it would be simpler to require someone openly carrying to be told they were not allowed in a store rather than have a store spend money on making sure that signs were posted taking up more window space.

"Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which if continued would grow into oppressions." Thomas Paine, 1776"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981, Inaugural Address

C-dub wrote:What I don't understand is why won't requiring a business to ask an open carrier to leave if they don't want them in their store won't pass. It seems to be working okay in other states. What is so different about this here in Texas? Based on what Charles and others have said won't pass here it seems that getting OC passed is impossible here in Texas.

It's wrong to require a property owner to let someone enter the property so they will be forced to confront them and tell them to leave.

Chas.

Do you know if this was a big sticking point in any of the other states where this is the law? I haven't gotten that from anything else on this forum or the Kansas Forum I'm on. I know Kansas does have a sign, not a big ugly sign, to prohibit both OC and CC, but there are a bunch of people there that also get around to other states. I just thought it would be simpler to require someone openly carrying to be told they were not allowed in a store rather than have a store spend money on making sure that signs were posted taking up more window space.

OK and KS don't have big ugly signs, they have gun buster signs that are enforceable for ANY carry. We don't want to go backwards and have that be applicable to concealed carry.

I've read posts stating that some states do not allow private property owners to post enforceable no-trespass signs, but instead require the property owner to ask someone to leave. I've never seen such a statute, but in all candor I've never looked.

I cannot imagine any state with such an absurd no-trespass law. That would mean a property owner would be forced to allow people they consider undesirable on their property, then confront them and tell them to leave. If 50 such people entered daily, he/she would have to confront 50 people every day, with each confrontation being a potential argument, assault or worse. This would never pass the Texas Legislature, nor should it.

As I posted before, the practice of many LEO agencies to is to require someone to tell the offender to leave with the officer present before the officer would make an arrest, but that's not required by law. Also, with an officer present, there's not much of a chance that a serious confrontation will erupt. (Some agencies also keep a trespass warning log, so if the offender returns they will be arrested without yet another order to leave.)

Before anyone jumps in with a comment, this has nothing to do with state or federal laws prohibiting discrimination against people in protected classes, so don't even bring that up.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I've read posts stating that some states do not allow private property owners to post enforceable no-trespass signs, but instead require the property owner to ask someone to leave. I've never seen such a statute, but in all candor I've never looked.

I cannot imagine any state with such an absurd no-trespass law. That would mean a property owner would be forced to allow people they consider undesirable on their property, then confront them and tell them to leave. If 50 such people entered daily, he/she would have to confront 50 people every day, with each confrontation being a potential argument, assault or worse. This would never pass the Texas Legislature, nor should it.

As I posted before, the practice of many LEO agencies to is to require someone to tell the offender to leave with the officer present before the officer would make an arrest, but that's not required by law. Also, with an officer present, there's not much of a chance that a serious confrontation will erupt. (Some agencies also keep a trespass warning log, so if the offender returns they will be arrested without yet another order to leave.)

Before anyone jumps in with a comment, this has nothing to do with state or federal laws prohibiting discrimination against people in protected classes, so don't even bring that up.

Chas.

Charles, OK is one such state. No gun signs mean absolutely nothing to CC or OC unless the place is statutorily off limits. The owner (or person in control of the property) must ask the person to leave. If they don't, then they can be arrested.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I've read posts stating that some states do not allow private property owners to post enforceable no-trespass signs, but instead require the property owner to ask someone to leave. I've never seen such a statute, but in all candor I've never looked.

I cannot imagine any state with such an absurd no-trespass law. That would mean a property owner would be forced to allow people they consider undesirable on their property, then confront them and tell them to leave. If 50 such people entered daily, he/she would have to confront 50 people every day, with each confrontation being a potential argument, assault or worse. This would never pass the Texas Legislature, nor should it.

As I posted before, the practice of many LEO agencies to is to require someone to tell the offender to leave with the officer present before the officer would make an arrest, but that's not required by law. Also, with an officer present, there's not much of a chance that a serious confrontation will erupt. (Some agencies also keep a trespass warning log, so if the offender returns they will be arrested without yet another order to leave.)

Before anyone jumps in with a comment, this has nothing to do with state or federal laws prohibiting discrimination against people in protected classes, so don't even bring that up.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton,

By almost everyone's admission and anecdotal evidence, including your own about Northern VA, OC is not practiced that widely even in states that it is widely accepted. The odds that 50 OCers, or even 1 would be noticed in a store on a daily basis seems to be pretty thin.

Many states have signs that do not carry the force of law, and I cannot find one case where an owner asking someone to leave resulted in anything else than them leaving.

According to http://www.handgunlaw.us the following states have laws (or don't have laws depending on how you look at it) that make the "No Guns" sign not have any teeth: (IANAL, do your own research if planning to visit these states):

West Virginia

Virginia

Georgia

Florida

Alabama

Kentucky

Indiana

Iowa

South Dakota

Montana

Colorado

Idaho

Washington

Nevada

Of course not all these states have OC, but this list certainly is long enough that if there was a problem, I am sure it would be all over the liberal news media.

Going back to the premise that most folks who would carry an gun on there hip are the good guys (as the bad guys don't want to be noticed), a store owner should be no more afraid of an armed civilian then anyone else. If we perpetuate the idea that store owners could never confront someone with a gun, I think the unintentional affect of this is giving ammo to the left that people should be afraid of law abiding citizens carry guns.

I don't know for a fact that getting rid of 30.06 and moving us into a situation like the above mentioned states would work here in Texas, but it looks like it is working for them.

If we could make this move it sure would make the whole OC vs. CC debate a lot easier. If you are carry concealed, you would literally have nothing to worry about. If you were OC'ing you would open yourself up to being asked to leave and/or a possibly unpleasant interaction with the police.

All the above being said, I have spent to date EXACTLY zero hours working with the Texas Legislature. I am not in the trenches like you, and don't have the experience. My only possible hope is that some point we can use the above to show our Representatives, and our citizens that OC and a modification to 30.06 can work.

Thanks for your help in past sessions, and in advance for the 2013 session.

Keith B wrote:OK and KS don't have big ugly signs, they have gun buster signs that are enforceable for ANY carry. We don't want to go backwards and have that be applicable to concealed carry.

FYI: "No gun" and "gun buster" signs do not have force of law in OK. (LINK)Sadly, they do in KS (LINK).

True with regards to Kansas, but they must be properly placed. I'm not sure if they must be at all entrances or not or if there is a minimum distance from a door. I think there is a minimum distance from the door, but I do know that they must be at eye level. They didn't used to be required to be at eye level and may not have even had a size requirement, but they did change that less than 4 years ago I think. And, unfortunately, they did not describe an actual height for eye level either. But, you're right, the signs do have the force of law.

(f) The attorney general shall adopt rules and regulations prescribing the location, content, size, and othercharacteristics of signs to be posted on premises where carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited pursuant tosubsections (a) and (b). Such regulations shall prescribe, at a minimum, that:(1) The signs be posted at all exterior entrances to the prohibited buildings;(2) they be posted at eye level of adults using the entrance and not more than 12 inches to the right or left of suchentrance;(3) the signs not be obstructed or altered in any way; and(4) signs which become illegible for any reason be immediately replaced.

"Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which if continued would grow into oppressions." Thomas Paine, 1776"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981, Inaugural Address

I feel bad that some folks spent a good bit of time looking for states that do not allow private property owners to post signs to prevent trespass. That was never my intent; I was just commenting that I haven't seen any state statutes to that effect.

What other states do on this issue will not sway the Texas Legislature to adopt a law that requires property owners to confront people they don't want on their property. It won't pass largely because legislators supporting it will draw the ire of private property rights supporters who are the majority in Texas (me included). Remember, most of these folks are strong pro-gun people as well, so I suggest we not alienate potential allies.

Be careful about asking the legislature to look to other states for guidance as to what laws Texas should adopt. Unlike Texas, most states don't allow licensees to enter buildings that serve alcohol, step foot or drive onto school property, or carry into government buildings, just to name a few.

steveincowtown wrote: I have spent to date EXACTLY zero hours working with the Texas Legislature. I am not in the trenches like you, and don't have the experience.

I'm in the same boat. That is why I accept Charles' position on this issue. Please don't take this the wrong way, but our opinion about property owners rights really is not relevant to the conversation. Our opinions about what should or shouldn't be is not relevant. The only thing that really matters, the only thing that is truly relevant is what has a decent chance to pass through the process and become law. I believe Charles knows what he is talking about. I also believe he has our best interest at heart. Now, if/when I invest the time he and others have in this endeavor and I come to a different conclusion about what is possible in this political environment (pigs will be filing flight plans before this happens), I might just take him to task. Until then...

Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid. John WayneNRA Lifetime member

steveincowtown wrote:According to http://www.handgunlaw.us the following states have laws (or don't have laws depending on how you look at it) that make the "No Guns" sign not have any teeth: (IANAL, do your own research if planning to visit these states):

West VirginiaVirginiaGeorgiaFloridaAlabamaKentuckyIndianaIowaSouth DakotaMontanaColoradoIdahoWashingtonNevada

Personally, I prefer the fact that Texas supports private property rights. An owner has the right to say they don't want guns on their property no matter how misguided their opinion is. The fact that other states are weaker on protecting the rights of property owners does not make them favorable in my opinion.

I am 100% OK with an ordinary gun buster sign being sufficient to notify people that open carry is not wanted.

However, one of the justifications for originally passing the 30.06 sign requirements was that someone facing a potential year in jail for a Class A Misdemeanor deserved to have adequate notice due to the severe penalty.

If an ordinary gun buster sign is going to serve as notice, then I think it would be more palatable to make the simple violation of a posted notice a Class C Misdemeanor, with the specification that a refusal to leave upon verbal notice witnessed by a police officer bumps it back up to a Class A Misdemeanor. A $500 fine still gets the point across regarding property rights without ruining someone's life for missing a small gunbuster sign inconspicuously posted. Or, if you want to leave it a Class A Misdemeanor, then make the offense a "knowingly" offense, so that evidence of a small or hidden sign could be used as a defense that the offender did not know the premises was posted.

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title, shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity.

B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle.

Is what your looking for?

Erik

No words or opinions I post in this forum are intended to be offensive to any member here.

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title, shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity.

B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle.

Is what your looking for?

Erik

Thanks Erik. Subsection A appears to contradict the theory that a "no-guns" sign is not enforceable in Oklahoma. It certainly doesn't have a provision requiring a property owner to tell a person to leave before trespass charges can be filed. Subsection B only applies to parking lots.

Thanks again, but folks please don't spend any time researching this issue if you're doing it for me. Chas.

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title, shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity.

B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle.

Is what your looking for?

Erik

Thanks Erik. Subsection A appears to contradict the theory that a "no-guns" sign is not enforceable in Oklahoma. It certainly doesn't have a provision requiring a property owner to tell a person to leave before trespass charges can be filed. Subsection B only applies to parking lots.

Thanks again, but folks please don't spend any time researching this issue if you're doing it for me. Chas.

I was interested in what the OK statues said so I spent 30 sec looking it up..no big deal as I consume my 4th cup of coffee this morning and let my Helicopter motors cool down a bit between flights

No words or opinions I post in this forum are intended to be offensive to any member here.

E.Marquez wrote: I was interested in what the OK statues said so I spent 30 sec looking it up..no big deal as I consume my 4th cup of coffee this morning and let my Helicopter motors cool down a bit between flights

IANAL for sure, but I don't think you will find a law that says that a private property owner must notify a OC/CHLer to leave the property. Laws in general are not permissive, but restrictive.

I think what you will find is an absence of a law that provides for conviction of someone for just walking by a sign. Since there is no law that states this, it really goes back to simple trespass statues.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I feel bad that some folks spent a good bit of time looking for states that do not allow private property owners to post signs to prevent trespass. That was never my intent; I was just commenting that I haven't seen any state statutes to that effect.

What other states do on this issue will not sway the Texas Legislature to adopt a law that requires property owners to confront people they don't want on their property. It won't pass largely because legislators supporting it will draw the ire of private property rights supporters who are the majority in Texas (me included). Remember, most of these folks are strong pro-gun people as well, so I suggest we not alienate potential allies.

Be careful about asking the legislature to look to other states for guidance as to what laws Texas should adopt. Unlike Texas, most states don't allow licensees to enter buildings that serve alcohol, step foot or drive onto school property, or carry into government buildings, just to name a few.

Chas.

No doubt, we do in general have it good thanks in great part by efforts directly connected to you.

However, what I was suggesting is that Texas look at things that are working without issue in other states. Just as I hope other states can look at the things you mention above as a fine examples of the things that can work.

I understand (I think) the right of property owners to refuse service and/or ask folks to leave and the ability of them to forbid them from ever returning.

I don't see handguns as any more evil than any other tools out there, and yet we don't have laws that provide for a sign to keep people from carrying long guns, chainsaws, axes, etc. Heck even the "no dog" sign really means nothing other than you will probably be asked to leave.

Open carrying is so rare, and also so rarely noticed that even if passed I would have a hard time thinking of a situation where a property owner would have to ask someone to leave. I have an even harder time believing that asking someone that is armed to leave would result an confrontation, much less an assault. This hasn't been the case elsewhere, and I consider Texans to be just a bit more polite than the folks in the other 49 states.